Letters to the Editor: Library Proposal in Focus

During the summer of 2008, Suffield residents went to the polls to vote on a new library. The results were overwhelming to not build a library at that time.

A group of concerned residents felt the town still needed a new library but realized a different type of financial proposal would need to be developed if town residents were to approve a new library.

These residents created the Suffield Public Library Foundation in the spring of 2009. Foundation members understood that the funding of a new library would have to include private funds to offset some of the tax burden on residents. This goal became the main aim of the Foundation, which is to raise money for a new library.

Toward this end, the Foundation committed to raising $1.5 million for the proposed new library. This is an ambitious goal, but members felt if a new library proposal was to pass we needed to keep costs as low as possible.

Until April 8, 2011 the Foundation had accumulated $660,000. We are pleased to announce that two Suffield families have come forward with commitments to help the Foundation reach its goal of $1.5 million.

Both gifts are anonymous and unsolicited; one family gave a $25,000 cash donation while the other family pledged a $20,000 gift. Each gift was given on condition that the proposal for a new library passed. These two generous gifts give the Foundation a total of just over $700,000 toward our goal.

We are grateful for these supportive gifts. They not only help us move closer to our goal of raising $1.5 million, but they demonstrate the generosity of residents and the support for a new library.

Mel Chafetz

President,

Suffield Public Library Foundation, Inc.

–––––––––––––––––––––

I have lived in Suffield for more than half my life. I graduated from Suffield High School and am now raising my own family here with two children in the school system. I have always used the Kent Memorial Library.

I agree that it does have its issues and something needs to be done. What that is exactly, I’ve not decided yet.

Yes, I am actually undecided on the whole library issue.

Part of me would love a new, beautiful library but another part of me is torn financially. My husband, Ryan Anderson, is a Board of Finance member; and as such, I am privy to a whole lot of “financial talk.” If I were not married to him, I would not know nearly what I do about the Town and State’s financial situation.

Now this information is public to anyone who can do the research, but lets face it, who has or wants to dedicate the time to learn about stuff like that? I realize it is our civic duty to be informed, but realistically most of us are not.

My biggest issue with voting for this library bonding is that no one knows what the state is going to be able to give us in terms of municipal aid. If Malloy cannot come to an agreement with the unions, we are looking at a possible $4.2 million reduction in Suffield’s aid. If that happens, everything changes.

If the library passes referendum and then Suffield is cut, how many more teachers and town workers are going to have to be let go to fund the added bond obligations? $4.2 million has to come from somewhere.

I am sure some will be a tax increase but some will come from cutting operating costs and therefore people.

Will we still love a new library building knowing that it cost a number of teachers’ salaries? I don’t know. This is what I am debating.

Maybe Malloy will get his concessions, maybe he won’t. We will not know until it’s too late. I’ve never been a gambler – should I start now? Still undecided and probably will be until I am in the booth ready to check either yes or no.

Respectfully Submitted,

Lisa Anderson

–––––––––––––––––––––

Seven Cents? Last Place? What’s this all about?

Yes, it’s true that seven cents a day per Suffield resident will cover the bonding cost for the new library. It’s also true that Suffield’s library is in last place. Let me explain.

SEVEN CENTS: To a household with an assessed value of $300,000, the cost of building the new library ($6.9 million to the taxpayers) the yearly tax increase will be $72. This works out to 20 cents per day for a household. It’s true that some households will pay more, based on the assessed value of their property, but half of the households will pay less. (It’s interesting to note that all of the homes on my road that display “vote no” signs are worth much more than my house.)

If the bonding cost is divided among all of the citizens of Suffield, it will average 7 cents per person per day. Seven cents per day comes out to $24 per year. That’s the cost of going out to dinner once per year or buying two DVDs. This is not expensive! And contrary to some opinions, if the referendum passes, by law the town cannot spend a penny more than the approved $6.9 million bond on the library.

LAST PLACE: That’s how Suffield’s library compares with libraries in every town with a population between 5,000 and 25,000 located in Connecticut’s four northern counties. There are 42 such towns. We’re dead last as measured by five different criteria: accessibility, space for children and teens, age of the building, condition of the roof, and town money ever spent to build a library.

Even if we were to spend millions of dollars to fix the current library, Suffield would remain in last place in three of these categories. Required renovations would actually REDUCE the space available to children and teens. For a couple million more, we can have a new, accessible library that will have adequate space for its needs – just like surrounding towns (Granby, East Granby, Windsor Locks, Somers, Stafford, Ellington, Canton, Simsbury, Bloomfield, East Windsor, South Windsor and 30 others).

If we do build a new library, we will move up the list in all five categories, but we will still be in the bottom half of the list in terms of library size per resident. This proposal is no Taj Mahal!

WHAT TO DO: New Englanders are known for being frugal. I, too, am a fiscal conservative, retired and on a fixed income. I consider the new library proposal to be a good investment of my tax dollars. I fear that if voters defeat this proposal we will end up paying more to maintain an energy-inefficient building that is in poor condition. I’m also concerned about how this will affect the value of my home. Will realtors be able to draw buyers to a town that has a library inferior to all of the surrounding towns?  I have heard young couples say that when hunting for a place to live, the first two things they consider to rate a town are the school system and the public library.

A recent flyer from the Suffield Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility claims the cost will be “$3,500 per household over the term of the loan”. This is not true!

The Selectmen’s handout from the town meeting gave the correct total 20-year cost for all 4 projects at $2,900 per household, including $1,440 total for the library (that’s the $72 per year figure, or 20 cents per day). With bonding rates near an all-time low, this is the best time to be bonding for a library. Instead of the inaccuracies and scare tactics of the flyer, I am more influenced by the advice given by our fiscally conservative Selectman, Tim Reynolds, who said in his April 21 letter to Suffield Patch, “I was one of those who voted against that question because I thought the cost was too high and the location was wrong. We will be voting on a completely different proposal this time around. The cost to the town is about half of the original price and the location is much better and makes more sense.” Amen!

Bob White

–––––––––––––––––––––

It is spring time in Suffield and the “no new taxes” signs are popping up like crocuses, only they offer no beauty and probably a more costly solution to a bleak situation.

Our library is outdated, too small, and in need of at least $3.5 million dollars of repairs with no new benefits to the town.  These problems can’t be ignored and will not go away. Sure, we can vote no on this bonding proposal, pay for things as they break down, and deal with unknown problems and increasing costs as we fix the existing, inefficient building.

This will most likely end up costing us more in taxes. As a banker and financial analyst, I opt for financing a new library as we will know our costs and get a guaranteed better facility that will benefit all citizens of Suffield for generations.

I voted no last time and got involved in trying to find a better, cheaper solution. I feel we have it. Vote yes for a certain outcome, or vote no and deal with the uncertainty of future cost increases.

Christopher Childs,

Treasurer,

Suffield Public Library Foundation, Inc.

–––––––––––––––––––––

Our town is now on the cusp of an historic vote on a possible solution to a very longstanding issue for the town: its public library.

It has been many years that key problems arose with this structure because of lack of building compliance, town demographics, and inefficiency. In particular, the library does not properly serve its elderly or handicapped residents due to extremely poor access, and its children’s room is woefully inadequate.

One would be tempted to say “for a town this size,” but in fact when visiting the children’s sections of libraries that are a fraction of the Suffield population, it is difficult to find one that is more cramped and impractical for a variety of uses. And in ALL of the literature that describes the "no" point of view, I have never seen a single mention of the overwhelming issue that the handicapped and elderly have been, in significant part, shut out of our library. That hill is quite inaccessible in winter, and the entrance and parking are a deterrent to everyone year round.

After the rejection of a previous plan that entailed the destruction of the current library, commission planners worked on a scaled-down project that is a model of efficiency and foresight and that utilizes the superior Bridge Street location.  Monetary donations from outside sources will significantly offset public costs, and the proposed location is extremely forward-thinking in the development of a stronger close-knit town center as seen in dynamic communities across our nation.  Finally, as the committee has pointed out time and again, the cost of simply repairing the current library is nearly that of building an entirely new structure!

When examining the counter-arguments to this plan (easily summarized by “no!”), it seems quite clear that the “solution” to this problem is simply to ignore it.  It would lead one to understand that it is truly believed that Suffield does not need a library!  It is more than a little ironic that in the name of “fiscal responsibility,” a course is envisioned in which property values - already taking difficult hits in recent years - would be seriously endangered with such a disenfranchisement of public services.  The proposals I have read, such as using the high school library year round by the public or simply distributing Kindles to residents, do not hold up to even the slightest amount of serious scrutiny.  And it would seem that at their core the goal of “community” entailed in many of these visions is the disablement of any sense of true community or shared responsibility for lifelong learning and collaborative enrichment.  

Critics of this plan have often resorted to the argument that a library is not needed in our century of high-speed internet and Facebook friends.  If that’s the case, then take a cue from our schools and call it a “media center,” which is exactly what this library is.  All available statistics show us that library usership has increased significantly across the country in the past decade, and the use and exchange of media including books continue to be vital to a literate society.  Our nation’s founding fathers and mothers knew that the bedrock to a strong nation and people were functioning, highly used libraries, as is clear throughout their actions and writings.  It is time that Suffield made a strong choice to renew its commitment to this cornerstone of community, a place for people, books, access to public discourse and information, and activities for its children, elderly residents, and everyone in between.

Carl Casinghino

–––––––––––––––––––––

Suffield Patch welcomes letters to the editor from readers. Letters may be edited by Patch for length and clarity. Send them to perry.robbin@patch.com.